enabled our special operations forces, including the classified name of the unit involved to carry out the operation to kill osama bin laden last year. it's entirely possible that this flurry of anonymous boasting was responsible for divulging the identity of dr. shakil ofridi, the pakistani doctor ho sissed us in our certain for osama bin laden and which led to his 33-year-old prisoner sentence in pakistan. his name was divulged by members of the administration and he has been basically given a death sentence, 33-year sentence in prison in pakistan. you know, our friends are not the only ones that read the niewrks times. -- "new york times." our enemies do, too. let me be clear, i am fully in favor of transparency in government. i've spent my entire career in congress furthering that

principle, but what separates these sort of leaks from, say, the when i believing that fosters -- when fostersfosters t thesthey are gratuitous and utty self-serving. these leaks may inhibit the nation's ability to employ the same or similar measures in its own defense in the future. how effectively the united states can conduct unmanned drone strikes against belligerents, cyber attacks against iran's nuclear program, or military operations against terrorists in the future depends on the secrecy with which these programs are conducted. such activities are classified are enormously sensitive for good reason. in many cases, for reasons related to operational security or diplomacy.

their public disclosure should have no place in how this or any other administration conducts itself. these are the kinds of operations and intelligence matters that no one should discuss publicly, not even the president. with this in mind, i call on the president to take immediate and decisive action, including the appointment of a special counsel to aggressively investigate the leak of any classified information on which the recent stories were based and, where appropriate, to prosecute those responsible. a special counsel will be needed because the articles on the u.s. cyber attacks on iran and expanded plans by the u.s. to use drones in yemen were sourced to quote -- and i quote from the articles -- "participants in the cyber attack program" and -- quote -- "members of the president's national security

team." in the cyber attacks article, in particular, the author stated that -- and i quote -- "current and former american officials" spoke to him anonymously about the program because -- quote -- "the effort remains highly classified and parts of it continue to this day." what could be worse? the suggestion that misconduct occurred within the executive branch is right there in black and white and why a special counsel is needed. as part of this investigation, this special counsel should also scrutinize the book from which "the new york times" cyber attacks article was adapted, which was just released yesterday, for other improper or illegal disclosures. where classified information regarding cyber operations was released, the president should assess any damage that those leaks may have caused to national security and how that

damage can be mitigated. in my view, the administration should be taking these leaks apparently perpetrated by senior administration officials as seriously as it pursued those made by relatively low government personnel, such as the army private in the wiki leaks matter, or the former c.i.a. employee who provided "the new york times" with classified information about u.s. attempts to sabotage the iranian nuclear program. the failure of the administration to do so would confirm what today's only inference, that these leaks were, in fact, sanctioned by the administration to serve a pure political purpose. as i continue to closely monitor developments in this matter, i hope to be proved wrong. there's a "wall street journal" article -- "f.b.i. probes leaks

about cyber attacks by u.s." i'm glad that the f.b.i. is going to probe that. said that mr. sangor, in an appearance on cbs news "face the nation" suggested that deliberate white house leaking -- quote -- "wasn't my experience." he added, "i spent a year working on the story from the bottom up and then went to the administration and told them what i had. then they had to make some decisions about how much they wanted to talk about." he said, "i'm sure the political side of the white house patrolman likes reading about the -- probably likes reading about the president acting with drones and cyber and so forth. the national security side has got very mixed emotions about it because these are classified programs." mr. sangor again is authenticating that senior members of the white house and our intelligence community decided to talk to him about

classified programs. their motivation for doing so? perhaps we don't know particularly at this time, but i don't think you could argue that these articles have all conveyed the impression that the president is a very strong warrior in carrying out his responsibilities as commanders in chief -- as commander in chief, something that i have disputed as far as iraq, afghanistan, and other national security issues which i will discuss at another day. so, mr. president, i don't know how you could draw any conclusion but senior members of this administration in the national security arena have either leaked or confirmed information of the most highly

classified and sensitive nature. some of them -- some of these leaks have concerned ongoing operations. since they were highly classified and sensitive information, that classification was there for a reason. the reason being is, if that information was classified, it could harm our national securi security. ithese are very serious actions on their part. it's very serious actions when ongoing operations in the war against terror and the issue of iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons, which could trigger attacks either by israel or the united states to prevent such an eventuality, we now find leaks which have exposed not only to the american people but to the

iranians as well exactly what american activity is of the most sensitive nature. this is not a proud day for the united states of america. mr. president, i suggest -- oh, i -- may i say, mr. president, that i ask unanimous consent at the end of his statement that senator chambliss and i be -- engage in a colloquy. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. chambliss: i thank my good friend -- the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the senate will come to order. the presiding officer: the sergeant at arms has --

[inaudible] the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. chambliss: getting back to the matter at hand... i want to thank my friend from arizona for his very direct comments on this very sensitive issues, and as vice chairman of the senate select committee on intelligence, i can say without a doubt that these ongoing leaks of classified information are extraordinarily harmful to our intelligence operations. every day we ask our intelligence officers and agents to be out there on the front lines, putting their lines in harm's way, gathering information, meeting sources and using a variety of highly sensitive collection techniques. depending on where these officers are around the world, the operating environment can be both dangerous and downright hostile. this means that they have to be as much or more on guard to

ensure that operations don't get blown and their own lives and the lives of our sources are not jeopardized. but each time classified information shows up in the media, the intelligence community's ability to do these dangerous assignments becomes that much more difficult. not only do these leaks tell our enemies how we do our jobs and, therefore, how we can block or impede -- how they can block or impede our efforts, but with each leak, our friends and allies are left to wonder how much they can really trust us with their own secrets. now, these are not hypothetical concerns. senator mccain alluded to a couple of anecdotes and also a few weeks ago, in the middle of an ongoing operation, we all, friends and enemies alike, learned that details of efforts to disrupt an al qaeda bomb plot to a civilian aircraft. up to that point, most members of congress knew nothing about this operation.

that's how sensitive we were told it was. unfortunately, rather than quietly recognize our and, frankly, our partners' success and moving on with the business of protecting the american people, some in the administration apparently decided that scoring political points in an election year outweighed protecting our intelligence operations as well as our liaison relationship with our intelligence partners around the world. whether we could have learned more from an operation that was cut short by this leak will now never be known, but we've been warned by some of our allies that they will think twice before they share highly classified information with us. unfortunately, the leak of the airline plot was no isolated incident. from kill lists and bin movies to cyber warfare, it appears that nothing is off-limits, nothing is too secret, no operation is too sensitive, and no source is too valuable to be

used as a prop in this election-year posturing. and now the doctor who is associated with the bin laden operation appears to be paying the price for this posturing. following public disclosures of his involvement, he's been sentenced to 33 years in prison, a true life senate -- life sentence of 33 years in prison in pakistan. this hardly provides incentive for anyone else to help us. these disclosures, whether quietly sanctioned or not, are simply unacceptable and they are against the law. this administration reminds us repeatedly that they are prosecuting more people for leaking classified information than ever before and i support that effort. but just as we hold ordinary government employees accountable for violating their oaths to protect our nation's secrets, we must also hold the most senior administration officials accountable. recently, the f.b.i. began an

investigation into the scenario surrounding this latest bomb plot, and i applaud the f.b.i.'s efforts. following the public disclosure and the press reports on comments made by senior administration officials, i september a letter to director muller and said, would you please include this aspect of this -- these leaks in your investigation. and i received a letter back today that he is, indeed, going to do that and i applaud that. i don't know whether the reports are true or not -- have no idea -- but if they are, there are serious violations of the law having been conducted by senior administration officials. but beyond that, we've still got to do more. so today i join with my good friend, senator mccain from arizona, in calling for the appointment of a special counsel to investigate this pattern of recent leaks. leaks should never be tolerated, but leaking for political

advantage is especially troubling. there must be swift and clear accountability for those responsible for playing this dangerous game with our national security. mr. president, i would propose to my friend from arizona, you've been around here a lot longer than i have. you've been involved in the world of national security fo for -- for many years, both on the frontline yourself as well as as a member of this body. have you ever seen anything as egregious as the purported leaks that are coming from this administration on this highly classified and sensitive number of programs that we've seen in the last few days and few weeks? mr. mccain: as my colleague well knows, the leaks are part of -- of the way that the environment exists here in our nation's capital. and leaks will always be part of

the relationship between the media and both elected and appointed officials. and i understand that and i think my colleague would agree there have been times when abuses would have been uncovered and exposed because of leaks so that this information was made public, and we have always applauded that. there has also been continuously a problem of overclassification of information so that government officials don't have to be -- the republican or democrat administrations don't then have to discuss what's going on publicly. but i have to tell my friend i don't know a greater challenge that the united states faces in the short term than this entire

issue of iran acquiring nuclear weapons. the president of the united states said it would be -- quote -- "unacceptable. we all know that the israelis are going through an agonizing decision-making process as to whether they need to attack iran before they reach -- quote -- breakout which means they have enough parts and equipment to assemble a nuclear weapon in a short period of time. and here we are exposing something that, frankly, i was never told about, i was never informed of, and it's ongoing, at least according to immediate reports. so are the iranians going to learn from this? i would ask my colleague, aren't the iranians going to become more and more aware? drone strikes are now one of the

leading methods of going after al qaeda and those radical terrorists who are intent on destroying america. so now we -- the al qaeda and our enemies both real and others who plan to be are very aware of the entire decision-making process in the white house. and i guess the most disturbing thing -- and i would ask my friend. it's one thing to have a private wikileaks who had access to low-level members of certain agencies. one in the c.i.a. that i know was prosecuted. but this is -- this is according to the articles that are written the highest level in the white house are confirming this classified information and maybe even volunteering it, for all we know, but there obviously has been a very serious breach of

perhaps the two most important challenges that we face, the iranian nuclear process and, of course, the continued presence and efforts of al qaeda to attack america. would -- i wonder if my friend from georgia would agree that this is two of the most challenging national security issues that america faces? mr. chambliss: i think my friend from arizona is exactly right. i mean, we have -- there have been rumors of the drone program for -- actually for a couple of years now, dating back almost into some period back into the bush administration, and as members of the intelligence committee, we were always told and rightfully so that this is a covert program and you simply can't discuss it, so we never have. and now you pick up the newspaper and over the last

several weeks you have seen the president of the united states discussing the drone program, you have seen the attorney general of the united states discussing the drone program, you have seen the national security advisor discussing the drone program. and yet, technically, we as members of congress, particularly members of the competitiveness committee, can't talk about this because they are covert programs. so there is simply no question but what our enemy is better prepared today because of these various leaks and public disclosures. let me move to the other issue you talk about, though, the issue of the nuclear weaponnization of iran. there is no more important national security issue in the world today. i mean, it's a daily discussion at the united nations. it's a daily discussion at the pentagon. it's a daily discussion in

israel and virtually every part of the middle east that we can't allow for the country of iran to become nuclear weaponnized. here all of a sudden we see public disclosure, whether all of it is true or not, in a newspaper article on the front page of an american newspaper detailing a purported program of attack against that iranian program. now, what do our friends in the disens community think, what did our friends in israel think? how much cooperation are they going to now give us from the standpoint of disclosing information to the united states intelligence community on any program if they can expect that if this is, in fact, true that what they tell us is going to be on the front page of the "new york times." and not only that, but it's not

coming from some private who went on the internet and found a bunch of classified documents. it's coming from statements made supposedly by high-level administration officials. so it puts us in a real -- not a quandary. this is not a quandary. it puts us in a position of having to defend ourselves with our allies over certain statements that purportedly are made by high senior administration officials, and i simply can never remember a scenario of information being leaked where we had the level of administration officials that now supposedly had made these comments, and they are quoted by name in some instances. mr. mccain: i would finally add, a really disturbing aspect of this is that one could draw

the conclusion from reading these articles that it is an attempt to further the president's political ambitions for the sake of his re-election at the expense of our national security. that's what's disturbing about this entire situation. i see our friend from oregon is waiting to illuminate us, so, mr. president, i yield the floor. i thank my friend from oregon for his patience. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wyden: mr. president, yesterday, i joined with chairman bingaman to introduce legislation to address an urgent threat to america's national forests. the lack of resources to fight serious wildfires that at this very moment are burning on more than 300,000 acres in our

country. to date -- and it is certainly early in the fire season -- more than 830,000 acres already have burned. the heart of the problem, mr. president, is as the fires have gotten bigger, the forest service air tanker fleet to fight these fires has gotten smaller. in 2006, the forest service had 44 large air tankers under contract in their fleet. last week, they had just 11 large air tankers under contract, and ten of those averaged 50 years of age. now, after very tragic events of this past weekend in which one of those air tankers crashed and its courageous pilots were killed and another had a failure

of his landing gear and sustained serious damage, the forest service is down to nine large air tankers. this is an extraordinarily serious problem, and a solution is long overdue. now, the reason i have come to the floor this afternoon, mr. president, is that the congress has an opportunity to expedite what could be the beginning of a solution. the forest service now is ready to begin wording contracts for the next generation of air tankers, consistent with their large air tanker modernization strategy. on may 25, as is required by law, under 41 u.s.c. 3903-d, the forest service has given the congress a 30-day notification of its intent to award four

multiyear contracts which contain cancellation ceilings in excess of $10 million and require congressional notification. these four contracts would in effect begin to fill the federal government's need for large air tankers to fight wildfires. now the 30-day waiting period is simply delaying urgently needed action. without congressional action, these contracts will not be awarded until june 25. my view is with hundreds of thousands of acres burning and a severely depleteed capacity for sending air tankers to battle these fires, i see nothing that can be served by the congress sitting on its hands and waiting for those 30 days to expire. the forest service requested that congress waive the requirement to wait the full 30

days to award these important contracts. the sooner the forest service can award these contracts, the sooner the companies that receive the awards can begin to deliver those next generation air tankers and get them out fighting the fires. now, mr. president, i want to be clear that i do not know the details of these contracts and have no idea as to which companies that submit bids are going to be the successful recipients, but i do know that the forest service has complied with its obligation to notify the congress. congress has been notified with the required information, and i just fail to understand how the country is going to benefit by simply letting time pass. i urge my colleagues to see how important and how serious this fire situation is and approve

the critical legislation that i have introduced with chairman bingaman. at this very moment, mr. president, there are 11 uncontained large fires nationally, 152 new fires that have been reported in just the last 24 hours, and dire predictions about hot and dry conditions combining with strong winds, looming thunderstorms and arid lands across much of our landscape. all of these factors contribute to a dangerous fire situation on the ground, and yet as we speak the forest service now has only nine air tankers to assist those hard-working fire crews. eight of those tankers are getting to the point, mr. president, where they ought to be considered museums in the sky.

now, while the forest service can and should use all possible assets, such as helicopters and innovative options like the 20,000-gallon very large air tanker, the agency is likely to need to call in the national guard, and the large air tankers remain a critically important tool for fire suppression. in fact, the firefighting agencies mobilize air tankers 153% above the ten-year average in 2011. yet these planes needed to assist on the ground firefighters have dwindled to the dire storage, they have atrophied to the point that i have described, mr. president, this afternoon. now, this lack of resources is coming at a time when the nation's forests are very vulnerable to fire, and the fire season is early but we're already seeing the production of

record-breaking fires. fire seasons are getting longer and they are more severe, and we are seeing more and more, mr. president, of what the professional foresters call a megafire. from 2000-2008, at least ten states had fires of record-breaking size. the forest service indicated in its air tanker mobilization strategy that the agency will need up to 28 of these air tankers in order to adequately battle fire threats. so the forest service says we need 28. as of this moment this afternoon, mr. president, there are only nine. so i am asking today for the senate to recognize the seriousness of the threat and let the forest service proceed in awarding these new contracts as rapidly as possible. the legislation that chairman

bingaman and i have offered would enable the agency to do just that and begin to tackle this extraordinarily serious health problem. in closing, mr. president, i want to express my thanks to all of america's courageous and dedicateed firefighters. they put themselves in harm's way to protect our communities, and we should be grateful to them and to the pilots and companies and agency personnel that tirelessly battle these fires. and i believe on behalf of every member of the senate it's appropriate our deepest condolences to the families and colleagues and friends of the recently deceased pilots. i hope that by advancing the legislation i've described this afternoon the congress will be sending a message to those courageous firefighters and

those that they work with that the congress is beginning to put in place a system that would provide them real relief. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that my comments be printed in the congressional record and with that i would yield the floor and, mr. president, i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the assistant majority leader is recognized. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: people wonder as they watch the senate how bills get started. one of the bills i've worked on

hard nest my career got started 11 years ago when there was a phone call to my senate office in chicago. and it was a phone call from a friend of ours, duffy angleson who was managing a program called the merritt music program. it's a program in chicago that offers opportunities for free musical instruments and music lessons for kids for some of the poorer schools in town. the net result is a life changing experience. 100% of the graduates go on to college. it just is transformative. she had a story to tell me. it was about a young lady named teresa lee, korean, who was a child prodigy when it came to the piano. she played so well, she'd been offered many scholarships including to manhattan conservatory of music and when she went to fill out her application one of the applications was her citizenship or nationality. she turned to her mother and

said what is it, mom? her mom said i don't know. we brought teresa to america when she was 2 years old on a visitor's visa and her mom said we never filed anything after that. mom and dad became citizens. brother and sister born here automatically citizens but teresa was a question mark. what am i? so she called duffy, duffy called the office and we checked the law and the law said under the law teresa lee who had lived in the united states for 16 years had to leave for ten years and after ten years could apply to come back into the united states. she had no -- didn't know where she would go. her family came from brazil, originally from korea. there was no place to go, no language that she spoke. this was the only country she ever knew. so i wrote a bill and called at this time dream act and the dream act said young people like her should be given a chance to become legal in america. to earn their way into legal

status. and the bill basically laid out some conditions. first, that you came to the united states as a child. second, you completed high school. third, you have no significant problems of moral character or criminal record to speak of. and that beyond that, you had to do one of two things. finish at least two years of college or enlist in the american military. well, when i introduced this bill it was bipartisan. in fact, as many as 13 republican senators would vote with me but we never quite got to that magic number of 60 votes in the senate. we would get a majority but ever quite get 60 votes. and then over the years this political issue started changing. and, unfortunately, we started losing support on the republican side of the aisle. even those who were the original cosponsors of the bill started voting against it. they heard the talk about amnesty and all the criticism and they were swept into the belief that this should not

pass. but the bill is still very much alive, and it is the most important thing that i have pending in the senate, has been for a long time. and what it does, of course, is offer this opportunity. i want to salute senator marco rubio of florida. he's a new republican congressman, conservative, who took a look at this issue and said this isn't an immigration issue. this is a humanitarian issue. we should offer these young people a chance, a chance to earn their way into legal status. he's right. and he remembered that when 600,000 cubans left to come to america to escape castro's regime, it wasn't the immigration system that welcomed them, it was the humanitarian effort by the united states to allow them to find a home. and what a difference they've made. a positive difference in this country. not just in florida but all over the country. look at marco rubio, who represents florida in the united states senate. it was his father or grandfather who made it here because of that

humanitarian gesture. he and i and many others are working now to try to find bipartisan way to put this together again. i've come to the floor countless times, dozens of times, to try to ask my colleagues to think about this issue and in real human terms. almost every week i come and tell the story of one of the students who would be affected by the dream act. mr. president, when i started on this issue, the dream act students would hide in the shadows. they'd wait in the darkness by my car to tell me i'm one of those undocumented immigrants, i'm one of those students who has no place to go. well, times have changed. they're now stepping up and saying look at me, know who i am. realize as senator menendez has said on the floor many times, these are young people who spentsdz their entire times with their hand over their heart pledging allegiance to the only country they ever knew. they only knew one national anthem and it's ours. they think it's theirs. but legally, they have no legal

standing. let me introduce to you a young man who has a detroit grate story. his name is novi roy and he grew up in illinois. he was brought to the united states from india as a child. he was an especially good student. let me turn the page here, if i can. he attended evanston township high school north of chi, -- chicago, and during middle school worked in the soup kitchen in rogers park and continues to do that even today. he went to the university of illinois at urbana sham pain and graduated with a bachelor's degree-degree in economics. last month he had two master's degrees awarded, one in business administration and one in human resources. his dream is to help work in the health care field. to try to provide health care protection to people who don't have it today. he wrote me a letter and said "i love

america for all its opportunities and like any other aspiring student, i want a chance to realize the american dream. i owe the state of illinois, its taxpayers and america a huge debt of gratitude for the level of education i've attained thus far. i'm confident my education will serve me well enough to make a difference in people's lives and there is nothing i'd like more than to give back to the community that's been so good to me." for the record, novi, because he is dream act eligible is not eligible for assistance in education. these students who go to college, the dream act students have to work harder, borrow more money or save it up or take a longer period of time to get through. but they do it anyway, they're so determined to have a good life. novi has been offered jobs with the foreign 500 companies but -- the fortune 500 companies. novi came to the united states legally and his family applied for legal permanent resident status and when their

application was denied, novi was placed in deportation proceedings. he never committed a crime. he grew up in this country. we've already invested in novi obviously with an outstanding education from a great university. and he really has the potential to make america a better place. despite these facts, even at this moment, novi could be deported from the united states. in his letter to me, here's what he said about that possibility. "i've never entered the u.s. illegally nor broken any of its laws at any time. unfortunately migration case simply fell through the cracks. i've lived here in illinois for the last ten years. my entire identity is exclusively based on life in the united states. i have nothing to go back to. no friends, no family. nothing. america is my home." my office contacted immigration and customs enforcement and asked them to consider novi's request that his deportation be placed on hold. we just learned yesterday that the request had been granted. but the decision to put novi's deportation on hold is

temporary. it does not give novi permanent legal status, and he's still at risk of deportation in the future. the oepblt way for novi to become a citizen is for the dream act to become a law. would america be better if novi roy were deported? of course not. all these years of education, all this graduation from evanston township high school with a high grade point average, two degrees from the university of illinois, that we would let him leave and go to some other countries and use his talents to make their country better makes no sense. novi has overcome great odds to achieve the success he has so far in life. doesn't have any problems or pose any threat to this country. he would make america a better place. he's not isolated. there are thousands just like him. the dream act would give novi and other bright, accomplished, ambitious young people the chance to become america's future entrepreneurs, doctors, engineers, teachers and soldiers. today i ask my colleagues to support the dream act.

let's give novi roy and so many other young people like him a chance to contribute more completely to the country that they do call home. it's the right thing to do and it will make america stronger. mr. president, i ask consent that the following statement be placed in a separate part in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, last week during the senate recess, i traveled overseas to four countries: ukraine, turkey, georgia and armenia. it's a lot of ground to cover in five days. four countries. in a region with considerable history and great challenging issues. before i go any further on the matter, let me say for the record how impressed i am with the men and women who work representing the united states overseas. the ambassadors, all of their staff, the counselor service, the military attache do us proud every day and many make a personal sacrifice. they are on the front line.

ambassador john teft, the ukraine, ambassador bass in georgia and ambassador hef r*eu n -- hefrin in armenia are a remind why the money makes a big difference in a world. this is a reminder of the legacy to challenges facing countries like ukraine, georgia, armenia trying to build independent nations. they inherited an environment that had been virtually destroyed by the soviets, broken economies built on a failed soviet model and weak government institutions. sadly these countries are not just trying to build modern nations, but they he face increased pressure from russia. they continue, even though they face this pressure from russia, to look west to the european union, to the united states and nato. they long to be part,

partnerships with the united states. we need to support that relationship as well as the programs that help in transition away from the soviet legacy. there isn't enough time to cover all the issues facing all the countries but i want to mention a few. in ukraine there has been a troubling development that threatens to overshadow so much of the progress they've made. specifically this government currently in controlled jailed former prime minister tabashenko over alleged wrongdoing regarding a contract with natural gas with russia. many people read about her detention and hunger strike. one need not agree with decisions of former politicians and i'm not here to judge whether that contract was sound or not, but what i can say is in a democracy one shouldn't make a practice of jailing political opponents. it kind of discourages people from running. doing so has had, has the bad taste of lukashenko's dick tapership in neighboring belarus and i've seen that firsthand

when the day after his election, lukashenko jailed all of his political opponents. talk about discouraging people running for office. as long as no criminal activity occurred in a democracy, voters should stkaoeut at -- decide ate ballot box if they did or didn't like decisions of the elected discussion. i had a heart wrenching discussion with a the daughter and others on issues of shared ukraine yen cooperation as well as the detention. they assured me they're going to move on a timely basis to deal with this detention and i assured them the west was watching closely. i hope she will be released from her detention as quickly as possible. my second stop was in turkey. i've been there several times before. it's a growing power in the region of the world, a thriving

muslim democracy and a strong nato partner of the united states. turkey agreed to build an important nato radar base on its soil, an installation that is absolutely critical in keeping an eye on iran and its nuclear ambitions. this was a hard decision by turkey to agree to this installation for nato and they made it, and i thank them for it because it makes the world a safer place. turkey is hosting on its borders 20,000 refugees. i visit add refugee camp. there were almost 10,000, 60% of them women and children. they were given a good, clean place to stay. the turkey government needs to be commended for the hospitality and kindness they provided to their syrian neighbors fleeing syrian president assad's brutality. i wondered if the united states would be as welcoming under

those circumstances. turkey has been and should be commended for it. i spoke with many of the syrians in the camp. they told me stories that were deeply troubling about the violence they faced and why they had to pick up and leave everything behind and move to a neighboring country. they worried about family and friends still there, particularly given the massacre reported last week. the international community must do more to end the violence and foster a representative transition to democracy in syria. i have to note for the record that i saw my colleague, john mccain on the floor today, and i know he and senator lieberman and others have been to the same place and met with refugees and have strong feelings about syria. i have to say, and i said this to the syrian opposition i met with, i don't believe there's an appetite in america for invading another muslim country or sending america's armies to a new place in the world. we are war weary after more than ten years at it. what we're looking for is an

international organization or others who will join in the effort to stop the killing under bashar al-assad. we're encouraging for russia to step up. it's always had a special relationship with syria. if russia can bring the various parties together, end the violence and start a transition away from the bloody brutality of bashar al-assad, it will be in the best interest of russia and the world. and the arab league needs to raise its voice about solving those problems. we can't let assad bring any further embarrassment to the nation's around the world. he's proven himself unworthy of support of russia or any country. i'm urging russia, the united states, turkey and others to find a timely way forward in syria. mr. president, my final stops were georgia and armenia, two other friends of the united states. in georgia, president shack sraoe lao -- the president was a leader in the revolution. his term ends soon and i hope

the ensuing election and peaceful transfer of power will serve as a model for the region. we should not forget one very important thing about georgia. it is still dealing with the after effects of the 2008 war with russia that resulted in a break-away republics. i visited the south session borderline. i saw the permanent russian facilities there. it is clear that putin is trying to create a provocative environment in, within georgia today. we need to take steps to make sure the e.u. six-point plan is worked out, a plan that was not implemented after the war. and i hope displaced persons and communities will have a chance to be reintegrated back into georgia where they belong. we need to take the steps to eliminate and reduce unnecessary

human suffering. the e.u. has an important monitoring mission there, and i urge russia and georgia to work with them. one last point i want to make about georgia is a lieutenant colonel in the u.s. marine corps who is stationed in tblisi reported on what is a phenomenal thing going on. georgia is not in nato. president obama said they can be and will be and they should be. but at this moment in time georgia is contributing more forces and soldiers per capita than any nation on earth through the nato mission in afghanistan. and the lieutenant colonel in our marine corps training these georgian soldiers said they were great fighters. he went on to say, if you want to know how i can prove that, i'm sending them to afghanistan to stand next to u.s. marines and be there to help us in the fight. that's as great an endorsement as any marine could give to another fighting soldier. lastly, armenia. there are so many armenians across america who made such a profound impact on our nation,

in fact around the world. the dias pra of citizens is a nation that lived through terrible brutality and loss of life. the genocide that occurred at the beginning of the last century may have claimed as many as a million and a half lives as armenians were displaced from what is now eastern turkey, many pushed into the deserts of syria where they died. it is a legacy they remember and i visited the genocide museum to acknowledge the great loss of life that armenia suffered. there was a special tribute there to clara barton who may be remembered in american history for her work in establishing nursing and health care. she went on late in life, in her 70's, to armenia to provide that same kind of assistance. she's given special recognition in armenia today. the american -- the armenian genocide memorial and museum paid tribute to many armenians and the courageous leadership of

those countries that went forward after their painful past. i called on the president of turkey when i visited with him as i did several years ago to work closely with armenia to try to resolve past differences to make an honest acknowledgement of the history between the two countries and to try to work out a peaceful and cooperative relationship. mr. president, one encounter in armenia gave me hope that such a path forward is possible, i had the chance to meet with six armenians who participated in the u.s. supported program, a cross border program with turkey. artists, journalists, filmmakers and high school students and some of their stories were deeply moving. one young high school student named victoria talked about the summer camp she visited in vermont with turkish high school counterparts how they started friendships. a film maker talked about programs with counterparts.

and an entrepreneur in armenia talked about a service he set up to help business people from turkey work in armenia and invest in the country. these stories gave me hope that some of the painful wounds between the countries can be healed. mr. president, let me close by saying what a reminder these countries are of the importance still played by american leadership all over the world. at a time when so many economic and security challenges around the world, now is not the time for the united states to retreat from the global stage. i fully support the president's ending of the war in iraq. i do believe we should remove our troops from afghanistan as quickly as possible. but i know that we have to remain engaged. the world still looks to us for leadership and values that they can build their own countries on and their future on as well. mr. president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the assistant majority leader. mr. durbin: i ask that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i ask that the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to consideration of calendar number 414, s. 2061. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 414, s. 2061, a bill to provide an exchange of land between the department of homeland security and the south carolina state ports authority. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported amendments be agreed to, the bill as amend be read third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate, and related statements be printed in the record.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: dishaict the senate proceed to to the immediate consideration of the following resolutions which were submitted earlier today: senate resolution 477, 478, 479, and 480. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will broad en bloc. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent that the the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the resolutions be printed in the record at the appropriate place as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate now proceed to the consideration of senate resolution 481, submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 481, celebrating the 60th anniversary of the united states-philippines mutual defense treaty and the vitality of the overall bilateral relationship. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measurement? without objection. the senate will proceed.

mr. durbin: mr. president, i know of no further debate on the resolution. i ask that you call for the yeas and nays. i ask for the call for a vote. the presiding officer: all in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent that the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to consideration of senate concurrent resolution 45, submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate concurrent resolution 45, authorizing the use of emancipation hall in the capitol visitors' center for an event to award the congressional gold medal to the mockford point marines. the presiding officer: is objection? without objection.

mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate, and snaimentz relating to the matter be placed in the record as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, the senate adjourn until:30 a.m. on wednesday, june 6. following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders being reserved n.r.a. their use later in the day, the majority leader be recreationed. following the remarks of the majority leader and those of the republican leader, the next hour be equally divided and controlled between the threerds with the republicans controlling the first half and the majority controlling the final half. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: it is the majority leader's intention to resume consideration of the motion to proceed to senate bill 3240, the farm bill. we hope we can begin consideration of the bill during tomorrow's session. if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned unti until:30 a.m. to. -- until

do see a wide cast of characters. it touches on a a lot of has beens of congress. just about everybody a lot of senators. victoria's secret a very senior committee on the agricultural committee. a lot of high up people like

even senator max might be involved. you'll see the pushback will probably come from people lead by and you'll see some efforts to an amendment from gillibrand. is so i think that's probably the most likely. >> what is particularly about food stamps that will get their attendance in the debate on the bill. >> one of the thins that is forgotten about the farm bill, it is a food bill. it covers more than people grows fiewts and vegetables and commodity crops. it covers food assistance, the snack program and this particularly cuts about $4 billion from that program. there are cuts all over the board. there are $4 billion in cuts now. they say that senator stef gnaw says the majority of the cuts are come from narrows administrative costs but the fact of the matter is, it is being used more and more during

the recession food stamps are. there are some concern that any cuts in the program could be a big loss for people in need. >> we're reading in national journal and elsewhere the debate is going to take several weeks. why is that? >> well, it's because it is a huge bill. norms. it's about 959 billion dollars and it is a great opportunity for amendments. and there are already dozens of them pours in. and they don't have to be germane to the bill themselves. so we could see people brining in immigration amendments, you could see people bringing in abortion amendments, and even narrow it down the bills that are germane. there are issues about growing food and about farms that could really -- and the debate of those will take a long time. >> are we going to see the debate on the farm bill in the house? >> i think that's a good question. the hope is that, you know, karen lucas, in on the committee

has said that seize the opportunity. the senate bill is an opportunity move things forward in the house. but there's a length of time -- a lot of question it there is enough pressure in the leadership in the house to bring it to the floor. i'm sure we'll see something on committees it's an open question whether or not it will get to the house floor. >> there's a lot facing the congress this summer. what's the time table of getting it to the president. >> it does expire, i believe in september. when it expires, the farm bill doesn't go away it reverts back to the law passed in the '30s and '40s which would be difficult for farmers. i feel like most members want to get something done this summer. like you said, it is packed in the summer. it's tentatively they need to get something done by july to have the good perspective to going to committee. and resolving the issue.

>> thank you for the update. >> thank you. >> and big day in wisconsin as well. republican governor scott walk aeromilwaukee democratic mayor face off in the state's recall election. it's the third election in the history. governor wawber became the recall efforts a year ago when he signed the bill into law effectively ending collective bargaining rights for public union workers. as soon as the polls close on 9 p.m. eastern we'll be casting life coverage of the results as well as speeches from the two candidates. chris matthews of the featured speaker monday at the gerald ford journalist luncheon in washington, d.c. he described the experience working for house speaker o'neal and his opinion some of the mistakes made by president obama

and presidential candidate romney. he spoke and took questions for about forty minutes. president ford once said that i have had a lot of adversaries in my political life and no enemies can remember. one of the adversaries was thomas p. 0 kneel a massachusetts democrat when whom he served in the house of representativeses. o'neal and ford were friends. the gerald ford presidential foundation will be honoring the award at the annual dinner tonight. he was speaker of the house. toward the end of career, he hired our luncheon speaker to be his press secretary. chris matthews was born in phil fill and graduated from a college in massachusetts. he served the peace corp. in africa from 1968 to '70. after coming to washington he worked as a capitol police ma'am

before working for democratic has beens of congress. he worked for o'neal for six years during the speaker's epic legislative and battles with ronald reagan. he worked in washington for san francisco newspapers from 1978 to 2002. he started the talk show in 1997. and in 2002, he started the syndicated weekly political talk show the chris matthews show. he is the authority author of six books. ladies and gentlemen, please join me in welcoming chris matthews to the national press club. [applause] >> thank you. it's great to be here for tip and jerry and the friendship, and i want to talk about that today. and, by the way,

congratulations. i wouldn't believe you were nervous speaking but i never get nervous speaking but going to afghanistan would get to me. scott, you're great. you're great. i really -- every time i got on the bus covering campaigns, with the quality newspapers and sit around me and watch them file a few chicagos and check a few things and pick up the papers and beautifully turned out factual price. i was blown away by the straight reporters. commentary is easy. it's very easy. so when you think, but reporting is worse. you guys are good. so i want to talk about what's going on today and the way it used to be. when i write a book like i did on jack kennedy which was a hero. it's still available for father's day. by the way, father's day they sit one fifth as many book z as christmas. it's a big opportunity mention that. i always tell young people, in the '20s it's all true.

because times have changed. you have to tell them about a past in the way as the parents saw it. i have the responsibility tell people about the past. my parents did that. and they -- they told us about the war. they were talking about the war. the before the war after the war, housing was never as good after the war before the war. people like the catholics got in the door after the war. good things happened and jewish people too. a lot of things after the war were different. politickingspolitickings is different today. i don't think it's better. my secular religion, the city without smoke stackets or factories. the only thing we do here if you look around is make deals. good deals. comprises. it's called legislation. government. we come from here from different points of view, we keep them, we find a way to governor the country. it's what we do.

that's why we cover it. it's important for how we run the great country. we different we come with and words to the speaker at one point of view. but, you know, i think it takes a couple of things for the city to work. you have to listen to the other side. even if they are -- you have to listen to the tea party, believe it or not. they might have something, maybe. [laughter] you have to listen. you have to listen. you have to listen. it's like being married. [laughter] you know, the guys get the -- and two, you have to be willing to negotiate, because if you don't negotiate, you never make a deal you never reach a direction. we don't have a direction we have chaos with, like right now, like that. i want to talk about gear i are gourd and 0 kneel. when he was one tough guy. i can tell you.

he was one tough boss. people say do you like that job. it's the toughest i had ever had. we have to -- so i i knew how tough it was. tip had within great quality that made him the man of the house. he loved it. he loved that place. and that's -- like san francisco if you love san francisco they'll love you. i work for the papers throughout. the one key ingredient tell them you love the city and you'll be welcomed. loving the city is what united everybody. what makes you a man or the woman of the house you love the house. i remember telling jerry browne, a different story. why would anybody run for the house. the come rod rei. he no idea what it meant. hanging out with the guys of the -- hanging out with the men and women of the house is what it was about. had loved the floor.

they were floor leaders. they looked being on the floor. they being where the action was. they loved the cloak room. the democrats had the cloak room. i had had the boiled hot dogs. everybody would go there for lump. he loved -- dare i say, they loved them. it's the best thing in the congress is the june ets. it's the time for the husband and wifes to get told with themselves and it create as wonderful friction remover where you're able to -- when you get mad at the other guy you'll wife will say you like that. i know, you like him. it's amazing how it cools things down on both sides. they work but they are expensive but you find out you are friends. i loved it. he liked the food in the house dining room. he roved it. he loved anything they had in there. he whroffed the gym. his idea of going to the gym was grabbing a handful of cigars and

saying to his secretary, i'm going over for a run. [laughter] you had to be there. [laughter] they loved the other members of the congress on both sides of the aisle. he a few people that botdered them. he used to call the three strewings. they the part of the gillman crowd. he a permanent membership in the three stooges. the other was bob walker. they made it so they never had a pay raise. there's a done call for you, mr. walker. they pass by you -- that's the next pay raise. it was how it worked. it didn't happen that often. jack did it. we got it this time. he was coming to the door, i have his friendses weren't all democrats. i tell you he had close friends, george bush sr. was a close

friend. they both loved the house. it was something that george won on his own. he didn't get in there because of the region or anything like that or saying he'll be reagan. he made it to the house on the own. to have it on your own, it meant more. knicks southern wanted to get elected. you the president on your own. and i think that's why he tried to do it on the own. he tried. terrorist a lot of pride. -- there's a lot of pride being elected. he liked him a lot. e really liked bush. and he loved phil they'd have cards every night. they played together. the defense mapping agency, they hung out to the. bob michael, they were buddies. the guy he loved was jerry ford. he talked about him all the time. he's living the good life in palm springs. dresses for dinner now.

we don't fit in. it was great. it was about status. and i can tell when his real friends were around, the space -- the nonpolitical smile. the real smile. the crinkly santa claus one. which he would get when his real buddies were around. and rocksy would come in and say you had her sitting on your lap, didn't you. he was in here sitting orphan your lap. it was like a boy's club. a tree house over there sometimes. the people's house, how proud they were of that. and compared to the u.s. senate. he was filled with the idiot sons of the rich. that's where he got irish. i had loved it when he talked like that. the irish tat. -great when he came out. he used to cut -- he didn't go to harvard. he used to cut the lawn with sheers back in the '30s when the

rich people went there. he could be cutting the lawn and the -- simon the great would say above your -- this this is memory. you're watching and champagne it's prohibition. you have a certain attitude, you know what i mean? irish like that. it's crazy stuff. i love this stuff. [laughter] you know, i say that you would sit around, and even members of the congress like tip would say seats. you only have to run against the communists one. you got elected fifty electionses in a row, primaries and general elections. they weren't all close. you the the great thing about the house compared to the senate. you have to stay in touch. you have elections every two years. even if you're in a safe district you are have to worry about the younger opponent. tip would be in the room i'd go

in the back room and there he was with the globe. it telled you what was going on at home. all politicking -- so you to keep track on what's going on in home. i are a great respect for people who lead when it's stuff. when you're politically incorrect. when it's not you that everybody likes. ronald is going to be remembered for the consistency and career and proceeded well before his particularity. just like churchill. you respect him for being right long before it was poplar. that's how people keep tract of you. they don't want people johnson to what is poplar. they want people who is script. that's the and he was like that. o'neal when i was with him were brutal. i mean, the nones were coming out be nice to president reagan. that was tough. i mean, it was really tough. he wasn't poplar.

liberalism wasn't in favor. we picked up 26 seats in '82. it was tough to be unpoplar. it was tough to get on the plebes with that. reagan put up with it and he became poplar. it was tough. i respect people that. ford did something as president that appointed president i didn't like that he did it. he pardoned knicks southern. when you think about what he did it was unpoplar. it cost him the presidency. he the courage to do what was right. if we let him remain the problems he would have never gotten out of it. it would have been two or three more years. get the country moving again. i think that was the example of well, country first is not a bad motto. country first. so it was warned that when i went up to massachusetts about

fifteen years ago and i went to the saint johns where he was christ end where he was married and buried to see jerry ford in the first pew. it's nice to see that. they stuck together. and i think most assurely tip would have been there for jerry. they were friends. and that's the way it was in politics when i worked at it. i got to love the cycle of the week of the house of representatives. i loved works in the house. monday was come back day for the tuesday and thursday crowd. tuesday was general debate. wednesday was amendments including the republican. thursday was final passage. and usually when all the members come in it was great because it was like mr. smith come in and watch closing debate defeat people like jerry ford and o'neal when they gave it their best. everybody would be there. great turnout. great stuff. and i do remember one thursday

night i don't know who the members were, i always remember this, i had a really hot debate really hot. typical thursday night debate. it made a interesting. it was a hot debate. one guy been yelling a at the other side of the aisle. i was watching it. as the room began to empty out and everybody went to catch the plane. thursday night, it was a ridge yule, accord began closing. the guy walked across the aisle and said to the democratic member, what are you doing this weekend? the guy he was yelling at. and after chat chitchat he said say hello to your wife for me. that is what it was like. and that's what it was like the way jefferson wanted it, the way madison wanted it, and thest that the way it was jerry and tip. the old days. i want to thank you for letting me begin my conversation with

you about the current events which are not as pleasant. but i want young people here, there are some of them here today, where are you? there you are. [laughter] younger than me. i'm a grandpa. it's all true. it really was like that. thank you very much. [applause] now for the fun stuff. do you feel that hardball political shock tows like yours are partly responsible for the growing lack of civility. >> not at all. i think it gets it off your chest. i think it can. i think that some tendency of people to watch their only show is mistake. i think youment to look around. take a look at fox once awhile. if you don't like it, take a look at it. make sure you don't like it maybe you won't. i think you're crazy to go by one. the days much walter cronkite

are over. it's too complicated. i finished the con kite book. he had a point of view. we knew the point of view. he was a liberal. we all knew it. he wasn't aware of it. everybody knew it. the idea of great reporter but he a point of view. the points of view are more transparent more acknowledged. if you -- if you watch television you can't tell the difference between fact and opinion. almost everybody can. i think al shap ever sharpton is known for the points of view. they know what they're getting when they watch him. i think people are smarter and looking out for the knowledge. people are smart. they know opinion. and they know fact. and i think they want three levels every night they want my show. they want the fact, news, around 5:00. they want to know what it means and what you think. they find my show if that.

they fight over facts. every fact must come from a quality newspaper like the thymes. i don't want to hear it came from anywhere else. i want facts. and secondly, we do analysis. we want to be smart with it and later the opinion. i do all three. that's any jobs. i tend people tend to vote after they watch me. i can't imagine being able to follow my show without reading a good newspaper. i can't imagine watching a show like mine and not being committed to vote. we are forcing people to read the paper but watch more. watch something else. watch something else. george is good on sunday. i watched mess the -- meet the press, it's great. put your own studio together. i don't know anybody that gets more angry after watching television. i think there is some ditto

thinking. because on the country, people are listen to limbo and that's all they listen to. i don't think they're growing, you know. [laughter] [applause] >> how would you rate your show? left, left, down the middle, very right? >> well, you missed one center left. i'd say we're 40 yard line. i think most would say that my. my voting record is certainly not consistent. and so i'm pretty much -- i think my views on a the love -- on a lot of things. ..

this is a program to be fair to the northwest and force them to pay their share that there's no free writers anymore. you never saw it that way because he had to keep the left happy, but he should've sold to honestly. it's a very good server to issue another sold out properly. so i think we are pretty critical, but i think -- i think i put it together my way and i've been doing this longer than anybody. i've been on my tv since 94 and

i'm on six times a week and i think people have figured me out. people are smart. you know come he gets another person after a while. >> what to make the changes taking place in the media? the decline of newspapers and tv networks and role of social media? >> or worry about social media because i love these tapers and editors. without an editor i don't know where i would have been. there is nothing, nothing like turning in a takeout piece on friday afternoon getting a call back. i get two or three questions. bridget at this and phil bronstein is a way to get that? how high are they? and it's great. and then you get a callback verger free. you're off for the weekend. as of today added it. i try to add it to people. who wrote this? i have a word for when i do it.

who wrote this? there's an expletive here. i want to know where that came from and must check that out. i think i have an instinct for what may be wrong. and on television yet another corrections page. i want to know who the editors are. everybody reads huffington and all that, the editing is going to be a big part of it. you can't have independent pieces thrown at you. they don't get edited or not site, the fact checking -- i worry about it. i just read that fact checking. i worry about wire stories. they say things that just aren't -- things could bite them in it just has a crazy pair like the controversy. it was a red spy. move on. there's no controversy. it's too late to look it up. i'd like to see adult editors, but on social media idea where

you as people come up with some rain this on a log. but that comes from? yeah, why do you not pay attention to blogs. how about you don't read any of them. you keep saying it that way. [inaudible] [laughter] i didn't count you. you're a real journalist and quality newspaper in the different than someone in their basement asking for pancakes after they brought down the government. mom, guess what i gestate? first of all, get a job. [laughter] i don't have much patience for this. i'm going to make enemies now, which is part of my life. but it is a journalist. i love straight reporters. i'm fascinated by the ability everyday that a when reporters. they are astoundingly good. the editing is incredibly good. what goes on this post at times in the journal of the editorial

in the new sanctions is just spectacular and the quality of the op-ed pages in the times and the journal, the times and the post are really good. i mean, the screening that goes on the best pieces in there have great journalists. i get up in the morning and read the "washtington examiner" to meet with the other producing. it's really got a lot of items. and steve smith added senecas raping people that are good, smart. i really pay attention to him n. i read the washington post. ever to all different ways for the phillies score, the scuttlebutt on the second page style which are your site could i not care, but i don't have to check it. i read the op-ed page of the way through to the diplomatic staff in the stuff that was his name the patriot you for it.

and then i read the times because you have to get ready for the times. you have to get your speed up like a rat, been able to read the times. a new yorker reconfigure post, but it's a really ambitious i really ambitious i go to the journal. but my wife reads that. but i think you put that all together. i don't know any country in the world who's ready to have that paper in your doorstep or driveway. if you want to know more, turn on your series xm radio and read the news and i flip around. i see it is fabulous. i flip from cnn and check fox because some of them are okay. some of the people are okay. i'm not big on sean, but o'reilly is kind of a mixed bag. he is not a simpleton right-winger. he's an angry irish guy who didn't get in the club. but there's something i do find unnervingly true sometimes. i do like his attitude. so it's fine.

people have their own -- i give the speech to everybody. there's not someone like uncle walter who will tell you exactly what happened. they had a point of view. its establishment liberal. the big networks for years had establishment liberalism as a basis to turn the. that is what they were. cronkite and establishment liberal. everything was liberal basically, but it is a point of view and is after goldwater and cronkite montanan. it's all true. go back and look at the tapes. the idea there was some object to a think it's a mistake. >> obama promised the public and journalists that he would have been most open at the mr. sheen administrate. has he delivered? >> i guess. i'm about the question is

really. i don't know what the relative scorecard is. it's a scorecard something we could find. g about point of view on this? go-ahead here to >> i'm a moderator here. i actually don't have a point of view. when he came to office, he said he would be the most on open and having press conferences and being outbid. >> i don't count them. i think daily preference and kearney is a journalist and he's doing what he doing. i think -- i think they have an alpine -- he has a lot of them. i don't think that's a big issue. i think the other candidate is used to a business press if you want to compare the two suits were into matching these days. romney is used to business press which you and the cat and. they only see journalists and they want to see them.

i don't think he spends a lot of time answering questions as the rope line, but it's not a big issue because i'm in the commentary analysis and i'm has to do with a lot of straight with reporters have get the latest. i don't have the ability to judge that. but you might ask chuck todd or somebody like that. >> in your opinion, why compromise become so unacceptable in congress? >> because of the way the voters are behaving. i grew up in the ticket splitting state of pennsylvania and everybody from pennsylvania knows what it was like. if you go for the state after state senator because you want to get a state scholarship. you have to get the state scholarship to the state senate on both the congress because you hope your kids will go to a service academy. that may be working right grip as an aspiring middle-class people and the way they what do

things. also with the state is basically a purple state can we have added election except to in the 20th century were split. i was there both ways. it always did. so they went way back to the 50s. it was like this all the time. the script can be popular. jack kennedy could win the state aid. it was always a ticket. well, gourmet ticket splitting states left. and i am told by experts at the numbers at this year was the last ticket splitting the number of people will vote straight. in massachusetts could be the exception because obviously scott brown is in the running. he may be even slightly favorite. so generally people vote for claire mccaskill. they'll probably go for the president. but if they don't, they won't in either case. i look at the trickiness over and, how do you vote for george allen and barack obama? how does that work? that's a tricky one. i think people are talking about

it. they are broken up a neighborhood skywatchers segregated obviously in this country. so you have come after a black member, you really fear is the younger person to your left. if you're republican, your only worry is a younger person to your right. so you're never aired if you're ever the black caucus or go to the right if you're from one of them out states are conservative state. and so come and the tendency is always to hedge toward the safe end of your party spec trim. so if you're liberal you're probably 100% rating. by the somebody get to your left? i know in politics is always safer to be with your base and therefore these guys and women tend to vote with their base. it is the safest move and you figure you will fight it out for the independent. i typed a member of congress the other day who said there's only 40 house seats up for election every year. the rest are all taken.

you can't there's a general election. california this year will get weirder because they have a new system with the top two run in november. though the two democratic seats. it will not be a big surprise. the voters a basically because the way we will portion and gerrymandered, you don't have many seats. we do have places like bucks county where they are suing seats in the house. but i will hold for four years. one year murray, and back and forth all the time. greenwood had it for a while. i mean, how many seats are like that? dingell? still here? and mean, all these guys are here for a long time. massachusetts doesn't change. in texas it's got to be a more than a one-party state. so you're going to have the vote in what they do one of us going to the senate because symantec will come fate he sold us out.

he is not a real tea party. bucher just got bumped. these guys are getting bumped and i will tell you orrin hatch is and from the cold yet either. he could get bumped in utah. it is sad, i think, that you can't put it together yourself believe reasonable people do, which is they don't buy the blue plate special. very few voters love unions. they're pro-choice. they go down the list in every single thing. they're against free trade. are there people like this? i think there's about 80% on the other side who were down the line left or right. i liked when people say on this issue is not what the party. i disagree with that, but you hardly ever hear that. i'm been earmarked as some kind of a pro-life nut because that's the one issue you with a party on a hobby case you're someone like that. but if our voters become

independent, will have more independent politicians acting. kind of sobering, isn't that? >> what do you think the biggest mistakes the obama campaign and romney campaign have made so far? >> well, probably hasn't made many stakes. he has said strategy of being the last man standing. he doesn't try to sell his personality. [laughter] no, i mean it. it's like willard or b. just knock the other guys off the court. a lot of super pac money knockouts. you could hide on -- you could watch entertainment tonight all night. you can't hide from the incoming. it was a relentless negative advertising done by these super packs. and so, he's found himself as a nominee now basically through process of elimination. he is a very strong team. i haven't seen mistakes a lot from him because he's won every

contest. and now they're all endorsing him through various degrees. women are coming back. republican parties historically fall in line. they don't fall in love. they fall in line. democrats have delayed? i mean, republicans are basically an organized radical party. which is unusual. i remember growing up as a kid in the early 50s i would watch the conventions and there is always a woman at the head of the convention saying that the delegates please clear the aisles and they never did at the democratic convention. when they see the clear the house, they did. it's an extraordinary political party. democrats just see who has the hot hand. this guy barack in a million years the republican party wouldn't brenna guy named iraq hussein obama. and a million years they wouldn't do it. they have to run a familiar name. 52, 58, 66, 72.

bush, a.d. committee for four commedia, 92. okay, go for a white guy, bob dole. 76, 96. but the republican party in society being around around a long time have been lost number of times, beaten a number of times, traffic easing of when you're almost through the revenue. they finally ran mccain that way. they ran this guy romney. good guy turbinado lunchtime. i knew his father. these guys come out of nowhere. jimmy who? bill clinton? is unbelievable. they're totally different political parties. when you lose as a republican they run you next time. in the democrats if you lose to shoot you. [laughter] and so that's why you people like al gore have to go grow a beard and go into a cave somewhere. that's why nobody knows or michael dukakis is right now because no one has ever asked. it's amazing.

users. it's unbelievable. if you lose the democratic party are finished. if you this republican party, come on back. jack kemp, he's available. let's put them on the ticket, 96. aspirin doled out. 20 years later they brought doled back. who wanted that? it's a totally different culture. it's a near-term political party and the democrats are a hot hand party. republicans you always come back here at republicans had ran mccain the first time, and it would've been interesting. i receive nixon had wanted 16 for the betterment and would have been later it might've been different. you know, they wipe them out and get so bitter by the time they get in there. the rules or you have to completely bow to everything. this guy romney i don't think he is driven by her principal. basically whatever the guys at liberty university want in the speech i'm sure he was willing to give.

i'm sure he'll tell the neocons but they want to hear because that is why they are there, to tell them what to say no to the same thing with grover norquist on tax policy. always put its dna. it's nordquist. actually it is that, but i put it in there. the neocons are social rate. anything donald trump once he gets. it's unbelievable. he worships the golden i/o. why? because he wants to keep the party together. he wants all elements of the party because it says i won 50.1% and this is how i get it. if you want transparency data from him. he openly tells you how to win the transparency by getting every element for him in except that they want and how culinary become independent of them. that's the tricky part because he is a moderate and is a practical guide, but how many

deals will he have to strike. obama's mistakes have been pretty obvious. i think he should have explained the health care bill as a moderate republican plan coming out of the heritage foundation. it's not socialized medicine. he should not have let that get started. you should never use the word stimulus. as a worse word i've ever heard in politics. they suggest paying out the window, wasting money. what the stimulus name? in the nothing. jobs program, stuff that means something to people. not just pain of states and localities. why don't you build something. eisenhower built the interstate highway system. all obama has to do is sad rebuilt the auto industry. i'm going to start doing construction this country with a lot of people working because this is what they do in europe because it prefers 65 miles an hour you don't know you're moving. bullet trains all over asia and were sitting around the amtrak coaches like a board and that's

all we got and it's about time we caught up with the world in a public sector because the jobs that disappeared last for years have been in the public sector. if someone would just look it up, private-sector job growth has been there, but it has been offset by pull back some laughs in the state and locality in the country. ironic nobody knows that. why haven't they told us? interest rates are zero. people send their money to germany and pay them to keep it. it's a good time to invest in infrastructure and aims to put people to work. a lot of people are out of work. anyway he have to do it until the republicans say no. if they say that every little thing he that sat there, what is the corpus of debate. he doesn't think big enough. just like truman debited turnup speech at 1:00 in the morning in 1948. call the house back into session and post the problem. we have asked many people unemployed are thus put them to work.

let's do it. and at least in the public would know what the elections are about. that would be made face to how he can fix it. [applause] >> we're almost out of time, but a couple housekeeping to take care of. i've got one more for you. i want to manage an enterprise club is having a safety daniel meet the deadline 5-k race. heavy sand that? there will be pancakes. you can meet p90 x founder johnny horton. you're asked to run. you can find that to support. all your pancakes, too. august 28th commandant of the united states during court. second they would like to present you with her traditional coffee mug because this'll make your coffee tastes better when you are. my last question for you is what you think about how you are portrayed on "saturday night live." >> great, darrell hammond is genius.

he does clinton mikey is clinton sold. he's unbelievable. he gets to us all. he's done me an east end cheney. i once went to "saturday night live" and just called the phonebook -- before they start at 1130 they're actually live. darrell hammond would be prowling around in the oval office the way cheney does that look real thing, you know, it was like a sardine character. it's so great. anyway, i like doing me, too. thank you. >> thank you all for coming today. thanks for the national press club staff and broadcast center for organizing today's event and reminder you can find more information about the national press club on our website at press.org. thank you. we are adjourned.

[applause] [inaudible conversations] >> over the past for years, pulitzer prize-winning author has been researching and writing his 10th book, barack obama

the story. research included traveling the globe and speaking with the relatives in kenya and discovering his african ancestry on the shores of lake victoria. he toured family home since i think typing campus to find the origins of his mother's family. barack obama the story comes out in bookstores on june 9th team. booktv will give you an early look with explicit pictures and video including our trip to kenya as he traveled with the author in january of 2010. so join us sunday, june 17 at 6:00 p.m. eastern time and later 7:30 the same night. your phone calls, e-mails and tweets for david maraniss on booktv. >> on a personal note, michelle and i are grateful to the entire bush family for their guidance, for their example during own train station. george, always remember those kind words of encouragement plus

you also left me a really good tv sports package. [laughter] i use it. >> as fred mentioned how many 1814, dolly madison famously saved this portrayed of the first george w. [laughter] now, michele -- [laughter] -- if anything happens, there is your man. last night [laughter] >> in the senate today cover the top republican on the senate armed services committee, senator john mccain spoke on

the floor about national security leaks and the administration. senator mccain said the current administration is providing sometimes classified information to the media in order to promote the president's agenda. his remarks are followed by senator chambliss, republican of georgia. this is 20 minutes. disturbing m of articles in the media. in common among them is that they cite leaked classified or highly sensitive information in what appears to be a broader administration effort to paint a portrait of the president of the united states as a strong leader on national security issues. information for which there is no legitimate reason whatsoever to believe should be in the public domain. indeed, the release of this information in these articles

harms our national security and puts in danger the lives of the men and women who are sworn to protect it. what price is paid by the administration to proliferate such a highly presidential persona, highly valued in an election year? access ash access to -- access to senior administration officials who appear to have served as "anonymous sources" divulging extremely sensitive military and intelligence information and operations. the leaks thew thes that these articles were based on, our enemies now know much more than they did before the day they came out about important aspengtz of our nation's unconventional offensive dpabilities and how we use them. such disclosures can only

undermine similar ongoing or future operations and in this sense this compromises our national security. for this reason, regardless of how politically useful these leaks may have been to the president, they have to stop. these leaks have to stop. the fact that this administration would aggressively pursue leaks perpetrated by a 22-year-old army private in the wikileaks matter, former c.i.a. employees in other leaks cases, but apparently sanction leaks made by senior administration officials for political purposes is simply unacceptable. it also calls for the need for a special counsel to investigate what happened. i'm also pleased to report that chairman carl levin has agreed, at my request, to hold a hearing

on these leaks in the senate armed services committee. the senate armed services committee has -- has a responsibility here, and i'm grateful that chairman levin has agreed to hold a hearing. in the latest of the recently published articles published on june 1, 2012, just a few days ago, "the new york times" documented in rich detail the president's secret decision to accelerate cyber attacks on iran's nuclear enrichment facilities with a computer virus that came to be known as stuxnet. the author of the article clearly states that former and current american officials spoke to him but refused to do so on the record because the program is both highly classified and parts of it are ongoing. i repeat, administration officials discussed a most

highly classified operation that is both highly classified and still ongoing, an operation that was clearly one of the most tightly held national security secrets in our history, unless now -- and might point tout my colleagues, that this is all about the iranian effort to acquire nuclear weapons. one of the most difficult national security challenges that this nation faces. other recent articles divulge critical and classified information regarding u.s. plans to expand the secret drone campaign against terrorists in yemen and the horn of africa. one of these pieces was sorry excuse for journalism that "the new york times" published on may 29, 2012, which charles krauthammer rightly observes should have been entitled "barack obama drone warrior."

finally, there was a recent article about the so-called kill list, the higherly classified or sensitive list of counterterrorism targets against whom the president has authorized lethal action. in other words, to kill. it was even reported in that article, may 29, 2012, in "the new york times" that david axelrod, the president's chief political advisor, who's running his reelection campaign as we speak, began attending the meetings in which this list was discussed. i repeat, the president's campaign manager was present and attending the meetings where lists of possible people to be eliminated through drone strikes was discussed and decisions were made. the only conceivable motive for such damaging and compromising leaks of classified information

is that it makes the president look good. these are not the only times i've been frustrated about national security-related leaks coming from this administration. the administration similarly helped journalists publish some of the highly sensitive tactics, tech teaks and procedures enabled our special operations forces, including the classified name of the unit involved to carry out the operation to kill osama bin laden last year. it's entirely possible that this flurry of anonymous boasting was responsible for divulging the identity of dr. shakil ofridi, the pakistani doctor ho sissed us in our certain for osama bin laden and which led to his 33-year-old prisoner sentence in pakistan. his name was divulged by members of the administration and he has been basically given a death

sentence, 33-year sentence in prison in pakistan. you know, our friends are not the only ones that read the niewrks times. -- "new york times." our enemies do, too. let me be clear, i am fully in favor of transparency in government. i've spent my entire career in congress furthering that principle, but what separates these sort of leaks from, say, the when i believing that fosters -- when fostersfosters t thesthey are gratuitous and utty self-serving. these leaks may inhibit the nation's ability to employ the same or similar measures in its own defense in the future. how effectively the united states can conduct unmanned drone strikes against belligerents, cyber attacks against iran's nuclear program,

or military operations against terrorists in the future depends on the secrecy with which these programs are conducted. such activities are classified are enormously sensitive for good reason. in many cases, for reasons related to operational security or diplomacy. their public disclosure should have no place in how this or any other administration conducts itself. these are the kinds of operations and intelligence matters that no one should discuss publicly, not even the president. with this in mind, i call on the president to take immediate and decisive action, including the appointment of a special counsel to aggressively investigate the leak of any classified information on which the recent stories were based and, where appropriate, to prosecute those responsible. a special counsel will be needed

because the articles on the u.s. cyber attacks on iran and expanded plans by the u.s. to use drones in yemen were sourced to quote -- and i quote from the articles -- "participants in the cyber attack program" and -- quote -- "members of the president's national security team." in the cyber attacks article, in particular, the author stated that -- and i quote -- "current and former american officials" spoke to him anonymously about the program because -- quote -- "the effort remains highly classified and parts of it continue to this day." what could be worse? the suggestion that misconduct occurred within the executive branch is right there in black and white and why a special counsel is needed. as part of this investigation, this special counsel should also

scrutinize the book from which "the new york times" cyber attacks article was adapted, which was just released yesterday, for other improper or illegal disclosures. where classified information regarding cyber operations was released, the president should assess any damage that those leaks may have caused to national security and how that damage can be mitigated. in my view, the administration should be taking these leaks apparently perpetrated by senior administration officials as seriously as it pursued those made by relatively low government personnel, such as the army private in the wiki leaks matter, or the former c.i.a. employee who provided "the new york times" with classified information about u.s. attempts to sabotage the iranian nuclear program. the failure of the administration to do so would confirm what today's only inference, that these leaks were, in fact, sanctioned by the

administration to serve a pure political purpose. as i continue to closely monitor developments in this matter, i hope to be proved wrong. there's a "wall street journal" article -- "f.b.i. probes leaks about cyber attacks by u.s." i'm glad that the f.b.i. is going to probe that. said that mr. sangor, in an appearance on cbs news "face the nation" suggested that deliberate white house leaking -- quote -- "wasn't my experience." he added, "i spent a year working on the story from the bottom up and then went to the administration and told them what i had. then they had to make some decisions about how much they wanted to talk about." he said, "i'm sure the political side of the white house patrolman likes reading about the -- probably likes reading about the president acting with drones and cyber and so forth.

the national security side has got very mixed emotions about it because these are classified programs." mr. sangor again is authenticating that senior members of the white house and our intelligence community decided to talk to him about classified programs. their motivation for doing so? perhaps we don't know particularly at this time, but i don't think you could argue that these articles have all conveyed the impression that the president is a very strong warrior in carrying out his responsibilities as commanders in chief -- as commander in chief, something that i have disputed as far as iraq, afghanistan, and other national security issues which i will

discuss at another day. so, mr. president, i don't know how you could draw any conclusion but senior members of this administration in the national security arena have either leaked or confirmed information of the most highly classified and sensitive nature. some of them -- some of these leaks have concerned ongoing operations. since they were highly classified and sensitive information, that classification was there for a reason. the reason being is, if that information was classified, it could harm our national securi security. ithese are very serious actions on their part. it's very serious actions when ongoing operations in the war against terror and the issue of

iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons, which could trigger attacks either by israel or the united states to prevent such an eventuality, we now find leaks which have exposed not only to the american people but to the iranians as well exactly what american activity is of the most sensitive nature. this is not a proud day for the united states of america georgi. mr. chambliss: getting back to the matter at hand... i want to thank my friend from arizona for his very direct comments on this very sensitive issues, and as vice chairman of the senate select committee on intelligence, i can say without a doubt that these ongoing leaks of classified information are extraordinarily harmful to our intelligence operations. every day we ask our intelligence officers and agents to be out there on the front

lines, putting their lines in harm's way, gathering information, meeting sources and using a variety of highly sensitive collection techniques. depending on where these officers are around the world, the operating environment can be both dangerous and downright hostile. this means that they have to be as much or more on guard to ensure that operations don't get blown and their own lives and the lives of our sources are not jeopardized. but each time classified information shows up in the media, the intelligence community's ability to do these dangerous assignments becomes that much more difficult. not only do these leaks tell our enemies how we do our jobs and, therefore, how we can block or impede -- how they can block or impede our efforts, but with each leak, our friends and allies are left to wonder how much they can really trust us with their own secrets. now, these are not hypothetical concerns. senator mccain alluded to a couple of anecdotes and also a

few weeks ago, in the middle of an ongoing operation, we all, friends and enemies alike, learned that details of efforts to disrupt an al qaeda bomb plot to a civilian aircraft. up to that point, most members of congress knew nothing about this operation. that's how sensitive we were told it was. unfortunately, rather than quietly recognize our and, frankly, our partners' success and moving on with the business of protecting the american people, some in the administration apparently decided that scoring political points in an election year outweighed protecting our intelligence operations as well as our liaison relationship with our intelligence partners around the world. whether we could have learned more from an operation that was cut short by this leak will now never be known, but we've been warned by some of our allies that they will think twice before they share highly classified information with us.

unfortunately, the leak of the airline plot was no isolated incident. from kill lists and bin movies to cyber warfare, it appears that nothing is off-limits, nothing is too secret, no operation is too sensitive, and no source is too valuable to be used as a prop in this election-year posturing. and now the doctor who is associated with the bin laden operation appears to be paying the price for this posturing. following public disclosures of his involvement, he's been sentenced to 33 years in prison, a true life senate -- life sentence of 33 years in prison in pakistan. this hardly provides incentive for anyone else to help us. these disclosures, whether quietly sanctioned or not, are simply unacceptable and they are against the law. this administration reminds us repeatedly that they are prosecuting more people for leaking classified information

than ever before and i support that effort. but just as we hold ordinary government employees accountable for violating their oaths to protect our nation's secrets, we must also hold the most senior administration officials accountable. recently, the f.b.i. began an investigation into the scenario surrounding this latest bomb plot, and i applaud the f.b.i.'s efforts. following the public disclosure and the press reports on comments made by senior administration officials, i september a letter to director muller and said, would you please include this aspect of this -- these leaks in your investigation. and i received a letter back today that he is, indeed, going to do that and i applaud that. i don't know whether the reports are true or not -- have no idea -- but if they are, there are serious violations of the

law having been conducted by senior administration officials. but beyond that, we've still got to do more. so today i join with my good friend, senator mccain from arizona, in calling for the appointment of a special counsel to investigate this pattern of recent leaks. leaks should never be tolerated, but leaking for political advantage is especially troubling. there must be swift and clear accountability for those responsible for playing this dangerous game with our national security. mr. president, i would propose to my friend from arizona, you've been around here a lot longer than i have. you've been involved in the world of national security fo for -- for many years, both on the frontline yourself as well as as a member of this body. have you ever seen anything as egregious as the purported leaks that are coming from this administration on this highly classified and sensitive number

of programs that we've seen in the last few days and few weeks? mr. mccain: as my colleague well knows, the leaks are part of -- of the way that the environment exists here in our nation's capital. and leaks will always be part of the relationship between the media and both elected and appointed officials. and i understand that and i think my colleague would agree there have been times when abuses would have been uncovered and exposed because of leaks so that this information was made public, and we have always applauded that. there has also been continuously a problem of overclassification of information so that government officials don't have

to be -- the republican or democrat administrations don't then have to discuss what's going on publicly. but i have to tell my friend i don't know a greater challenge that the united states faces in the short term than this entire issue of iran acquiring nuclear weapons. the president of the united states said it would be -- quote -- "unacceptable. we all know that the israelis are going through an agonizing decision-making process as to whether they need to attack iran before they reach -- quote -- breakout which means they have enough parts and equipment to assemble a nuclear weapon in a short period of time. and here we are exposing something that, frankly, i was never told about, i was never informed of, and it's ongoing,

at least according to immediate reports. so are the iranians going to learn from this? i would ask my colleague, aren't the iranians going to become more and more aware? drone strikes are now one of the leading methods of going after al qaeda and those radical terrorists who are intent on destroying america. so now we -- the al qaeda and our enemies both real and others who plan to be are very aware of the entire decision-making process in the white house. and i guess the most disturbing thing -- and i would ask my friend. it's one thing to have a private wikileaks who had access to low-level members of certain agencies. one in the c.i.a. that i know was prosecuted.

but this is -- this is according to the articles that are written the highest level in the white house are confirming this classified information and maybe even volunteering it, for all we know, but there obviously has been a very serious breach of perhaps the two most important challenges that we face, the iranian nuclear process and, of course, the continued presence and efforts of al qaeda to attack america. would -- i wonder if my friend from georgia would agree that this is two of the most challenging national security issues that america faces? mr. chambliss: i think my friend from arizona is exactly right. i mean, we have -- there have been rumors of the drone program for -- actually for a couple of

years now, dating back almost into some period back into the bush administration, and as members of the intelligence committee, we were always told and rightfully so that this is a covert program and you simply can't discuss it, so we never have. and now you pick up the newspaper and over the last several weeks you have seen the president of the united states discussing the drone program, you have seen the attorney general of the united states discussing the drone program, you have seen the national security advisor discussing the drone program. and yet, technically, we as members of congress, particularly members of the competitiveness committee, can't talk about this because they are covert programs. so there is simply no question but what our enemy is better prepared today because of these various leaks and public disclosures. let me move to the other issue you talk about, though, the

issue of the nuclear weaponnization of iran. there is no more important national security issue in the world today. i mean, it's a daily discussion at the united nations. it's a daily discussion at the pentagon. it's a daily discussion in israel and virtually every part of the middle east that we can't allow for the country of iran to become nuclear weaponnized. here all of a sudden we see public disclosure, whether all of it is true or not, in a newspaper article on the front page of an american newspaper detailing a purported program of attack against that iranian program. now, what do our friends in the disens community think, what did our friends in israel think? how much cooperation are they going to now give us from the

standpoint of disclosing information to the united states intelligence community on any program if they can expect that if this is, in fact, true that what they tell us is going to be on the front page of the "new york times." and not only that, but it's not coming from some private who went on the internet and found a bunch of classified documents. it's coming from statements made supposedly by high-level administration officials. so it puts us in a real -- not a quandary. this is not a quandary. it puts us in a position of having to defend ourselves with our allies over certain statements that purportedly are made by high senior administration officials, and i simply can never remember a scenario of information being leaked where we had the level of

administration officials that now supposedly had made these comments, and they are quoted by name in some instances. mr. mccain: i would finally add, a really disturbing aspect of this is that one could draw the conclusion from reading these articles that it is an attempt to further the president's political ambitions for the sake of his re-election at the expense of our national security. security. >> national journal group posted a firm comparing policy issues at the 20 tote is a joke this discussion analyzed foreign policy issues, including counterterrorism and u.s. policy towards iran and syria. from the museum in washington

d.c., this is 35 minutes. >> good morning everyone. [inaudible] i will briefly introduce the panelists. eliot cohen is here -- [inaudible] next is rich danzig, and razor to the president to send campaign in 2008 and is now the chairman for a new security. and to my right is eliot cohen, who asked his name is in the state with condoleezza rice and is now a special adviser to governor romney and is the director of the strategic studies program at the school of advanced international studies at half.

>> i stipulate we should describe eliot -- [inaudible] >> so jim, i will start with you. after the election, do you think there is any cause for hope and shed or ever has it got to the water's edge? >> that has been more the exception than the rule. if you look over the history of the united states going back to the first election in 1796, foreign policy has been something that the americans have thought of her. i think if you were to ask harry truman and dean acheson or richard nixon and henry kissinger or ronald reagan sure shows for their politics is on foreign policy david caesar money. >> when mr. requeue carb rich. you are the foreign-policy adviser in the way. what do you think has been most

surprising, seeing the president has implemented its foreign policy would've expected during during the campaign? >> i think the most striking thing is one that i would have to that has gone further than i anticipated and that is the evident skill with which the president has used force. it is an administration that is striking for national security and foreign policy. but the tendency for any given meter is to air in one direction or another. this president has been striking in his pursuit of peace and use of diplomatic and coalition and other strategies, the willingness in key situations where american interests demand it to commit to military force. the bin laden is the stigmatic, but there are many others. >> host: talk about how

traditionally thought to be a democratic weakness and how do you think that will play politically? >> this is interesting in one respect in traditionally democrats running for president are burning as weak on foreign policy. the issue in which they are perceived to have a lot of work to do at the american public. they developed opinion polls and the issue that president obama does not foreign policy strictly on counterterrorism, said that since he separated the physician strength. the bad news is of course foreign policy is not a high priority for most americans today. if you look at the standing question of the most important problem facing the united states, the answer to the american people overwhelmingly are domestic issues, jobs, economy, social security, health care and issues like that. the president may operate from a stronger position than the incumbent president, but they not help all that much. >> characters comment on that?

i think it's an interesting phenomenon but i joined the obama campaign in 2007, it was very obvious to everybody that presidential election was about security. barack was the dominant issue, it primary issue for president obama and his platform. it turned out to be about the economy. i do think it is striking that they're not everybody thinks it's about the economy company may turn out to be about security in the end because so many things could happen between now in the fall. >> well, there's a bunch of things i want to respond to. the eucharist my friend, rich danzig, but a lot of things can happen between now and the fall. starting with the economic issue, which is what will happen in europe. largely although not entirely with economic consequences here.

you know, foreign policy played some sort of role in the last election but i really don't think that is really what was determining. iraq was always in trajectory to to where it is more or less ended up. not surprisingly have a lower opinion of the obama administration's foreign policy records for nature does, but i think a lot of the difficult issues have basically been pushed out. so things like iran, where despite sanctions about that sort of stuff, the fact is they have center fuchsias. they have an enormous amount or nuclear material that may have an richard to higher level. they'll be hard decisions. they're going to have to be faced fair. ropey big things that will happen in europe. i think they're unsettled relations with china. all of these are there. i also include, by the way, the terrorism issue. i agree with richard this

administration has focused for a much on one tool, which is killing individuals, including american citizens. in some cases. and although that is a reasonable tool to use, i think it runs the risk of narrowing the nature of the problem that we face. i also think the administration has made a quite substantial mistake by insisting that the president's counterterrorism adviser did there is then no collateral damage that this is kind of a costless counterterrorism policy. again, let me make it very clear. i then favor of killing the people who need killing, push not fool ourselves to suspend a complete success. >> how does governor romney take off those constraints? >> there is no question that governor romney if he were president romney would be using

force. .. but in any case, the problem has in some ways to metastasized. you can see that now in human and somalia, other parts of the middle east. so i think these problems, they are extremely difficult. they are going to loom ahead. they have not been resolved by the obama administration. >> well, this seems to be describing in the abstract a series of decisions that have been made about afghanistan

would have turned from counterinsurgency which might not be, counter-terrorism. do you think -- that is the prudent, most practical course? >> what is so striking about afghanistan is precisely an example, how they presented with the difference between this administration and, for example, its predecessor. afghanistan was, as was widely observed, ignored in the main -- by the bush the administration. when we came and, central programs like, for example, the training of the afghan national police, training was understaffed by 50%. the president came to grips with it with great clarity and made a campaign promise. you would move campaign to afghanistan and did that. he established a very clear policy with some definitive guidelines. the opposite of the phenomenon

of deferring decisions. >> what about the sort of broader intellectual and social, you know -- >> it is very dramatic investment. i think there is room for disagreements. i think elliott makes a reasonable point in arguing for more counter radicalization programs. a point that -- a point that i know governor romney has not begun to reflect on, but it is basically a program, if you look at the work that the ambassador opened up before he died. the state department, carrying nine a very substantial set of activities associated with building institutions, and floods in populations, except representative. then you add the credibility of the president himself in that vast reaches. the world of credibility that was very low after the second president bush. and you see a powerful program. >> well, couple of responses. first, on popularity.

if you look at the pure research polls, it really is not the case that we have gotten this tremendous bump up in popularity , particularly in the muslim world from president obama. that is partly because of things like drone strikes. afghanistan i have a very different take. i spent a lot of time in afghanistan, and i think there are a couple of points that need to be made. one of which is that they did that was done by the increase in resources, including troops, by the way, of which have been put in plan by this a ministrations predecessors. >> the word planned. >> well, by plan, you know, the military plan, as you know, troops to task. a lot of the logistical infrastructure, preparing of units, training of units, t paat, resident did was which ended up being tremendously destructive in terms of our afghan policy was in his west point speech making it clear that we were getting

out. and that, y know, the afghan people are in many ways much moreopsted a tnk th msa ghrou to evyby d ik.ncvid bad bavr by every o enies, neutrals, the pakistan this. and the basic understanding is, yes, the americans surged to buy themselves some time, but they're out of here. and i don't think you can explain, for example, pakistan behavior, including this latest throwing, getting osama bin laden into jail without understanding. at is difference leaving. tween governor -- president from the foreign policy in president bush's? >> you know what i think the biggest differences? this will take us a little bit away from discussion of counter-terrorism in afghanistan , but the big

difference, which is why i was quite happy to sign up as one of his advisers, i believe president obama came in with the belief that the way you begin in foreign policy is by reaching out to your enemies. i think that these planes the reset with russia which failed. i believe that explains the silence during the iranian riots in the summer of 2009. i believe that explains why we send an ambassador to syria in return for absolutely nothing. of course we know what syria has turned into. i believe governor romney fundamental point of departure, and you can see this in his book he conceded is peaches. you saw it. you start by consolidating your relationships that you have with allies, whether it is britain or in his round or columbia. you develop new kinds of relationships with countries like india, and then you proceed to do with your opponents.

i think that is a fundamental philosophical difference in how the two men approached foreign policy. >> well, let me just comment on the couple of things. first of all, observe what happened here. started by observing that in his view, the obama administration failed to come to grips with things, constantly deferred into the future. and as the discussions proceeded and we focused on some concrete examples, afghanistan with the bush administration was seven years into afghanistan, planning to do some things in the future. the obama administration actually didn't. you look at the example that elliott criticizes. the president says, we are going to leave afghanistan. here is the timetable. that is an example, not a pushing something off, but coming to grips with it. so the whole tenor of discussion runs counter to the proposition. in terms of the desirability of establishing the deadline in afghanistan, realistically if

you want to get out of a war that is costly to a position in which the afghanis carry it you need to establish some deadlines. you need to catalyze action. failing to do that leaves it open ended. the president did the same thing with respect to iraq and was heavily criticized. it was rather a successful policy. it has risks, but we need that kind of closure. >> finally on the issue of friends and enemies, the president has been remarkably successful at rallying friends. the israeli prime minister commented on how it has -- he has never been closer, u.s.-israeli relations. we worked very closely with regard to the iranian issue. the issue of sanctions is a remarkable example of rallying our allies and our friends, to put a choke hold in effect on the iranians that is strangling their program. will it be successful? no guarantees in this world.

is it better than the alternative? it is by far the best thing that we have got. every president -- if i can ask jim, every president likes to let give decisions to make plans. for the sake of the election talk about the reactive component of foreign policy making and how that can affect the president's policy and also a kendis policy. >> what is interesting, you think about campaigns, but promises, goals, aspirations. government -- governing is about susan and facing a to reality. on the campaign trail, one of the things are allowed to do is wish away all of the constraints that make it so difficult to actually get policy enacted. you engage more imposition taking than in policy making. once you are in office you can no longer assume away all of the things that make it very difficult. which is sort of interesting. as i listen, both these men are emphasizing discretionary elements of the president or the president's team to any

situation. from my vantage point i am more struck by the structural constraints that limit your ability to get things done. i mean, the reason you have problems in afghanistan and pakistan, north to -- number three, a run, these issues are incredibly complex, very difficult, you leverage is not unlimited. indeed, in any case, what you discover is that other powers are weaker than you are, they still have the ability to inflict unacceptable cost challenges on you. and i think the big question, you think about china. the question is, what is u.s. policy going to be towards and a going forward? that will depend upon your assessment of where china is going, where china is vulnerable to pressure or inducements and also a real questions as to the extent that you can mobilize the united states. those are good questions, and is not clear that either candidate has really answered. >> i picture this point.

i think it is right. i think there is another asymmetry which you're going to have, which we always have when you have an incumbent. on the one hand you have an organization of a couple hundred people, plus some part-timers. the resources of the federal government, including the department of state, pentagon, intelligence community, and all that. the question is, when you're making a choice what do you look at. i think what you look at is these fundamental predispositions about how they view the world, how they approach things. and they're style of leading. a lot of foreign policy is the stuff that comes in of the transit. you have. and i think on the matter predispositions to, and not surprisingly, i am much more in favor of governor romney. you get these revealing little moments. like when the president asks the word to be passed to president truman, don't worry. in the next term will be more

flexible. this is a terrible kind of message to send, particularly to a the russian president. >> i think it is a revealing moment. >> for the rest of my greed. airshow constraints. there are going to be all kinds of surprises. >> select ms is the governor is sending, if we can talk about specific places and problems for a minute, how do you think president romney is going to be able to prevent the acquisition of a nuclear weapon? >> i think -- again, first, we have to start with the facts on the ground. in navy and disagreeing a little bit. i think there are these long elements of continuity, sanctions against the run have been building up over time. there has been a coalition in place. the fact of the matter is it is not working. it is not working, or at least it is not working fast enough. now, i mentioned they have doubled the number of centrifuges spending. there is all that. i think a lot of it is going to

come down to whether you are credible about the threat of use of force. because that is the only thing i believe that would cause the iranians to stop. and, you know, in fact, you can see this in a recent speech by the supreme leader, i don't think they take our threats of force seriously. >> do you believe that the administration should have used force before this attack. >> i don't know. i don't know. all i know is, we are, i up all we're going to have to believe, getting to the point face a very difficult choice. where that decision -- where you know, look, we have had, either the iranians will be so according to the public prints, convinced that this is going to commit them that they will give but the administration sources, and sent to assassinate the saudi ambassador in the united states. >> i would hesitate to make that difficult choice. >> no. i think president romney could make very difficult choices. if he had two. but my point is, my point is, if

we have a chance of doing this without force, which is absolutely the preference, absolutely the preference, the iranians have to believe that there is an alternative. we just had, again, according to the public prints, an iranian attempt to assassinate an american ambassador. i have not detected any reaction on the part of the administration which if i were an iranian would make me worried >> in terms of the administration trying to seem serious, the president delivered a veryovg holocau een whh henting mass atrocitiesm genocide is a core national-security interest. obvisly the mder ofom an cnnd 100eopl poses problem. does that represent a national security failure? >> let me speak to that. i just want to make one comment onun

th sctrods ofanns wakg hac on the irani enomyus thgoang table a absolu ctical set teps, i don hr elliott saeeinith i is remkable achme, and it runs counter to the romney instinct about the world consisting of lots of enemies. you talk about revealing moments, how about russia is our number one geopolitical and me? as : paul said, think of minute before you say these kinds of things. this is a revealing indication of the black-and-white view of the world that we used to have. when you come -- when it comes to syria, he needed to have the cooperation of russia and china and other major nations in order to make sanctions work. so it is with respect to syria. to move forward you have to achieve a measure of international coalition. and with russian resistance in this context and to a lesser

extent attorneys resistance, it is a possible anti that takes some time. i think the administration is wise to recognize that. divorce is inappropriate thing to use. the administration is very skillful at doing it, but american vital interests have to be involved, and you have to be reasonably sure that you can be effective before resorting to something like this. if the effect is to pump up russian supplies of arms and create a world in which you have an iranian and surrogate working in the region devolving into civil war, that's not a good use. >> i mean, this is actually pretty revealing of the difference between the tomb administrations really. an administration to my potential administration. so the obama administration starts off with the reset, and misspelled reset button as it turns out. secretary gave. and what have we gotten in return? the russians have been obstructive. the russians have been

obstructed and will continue to be obstructive on syria. the russian chief of general staff threatens a pre-emptive attack on missile defense sites in eastern europe, to which by the way we don't react. much -- russian military doctrine identifies us as their chief opponent. and in return president obama's in stink is to say, please tell him i will be more flexible in my second term. >> to you agree with romney's remarque, russia is our number one geopolitical? >> i agree -- here is what i agree with. i agree that rushes it is on the whole opposed to american interests. this -- to the regime, which is an ugly regime, and i resent, and we don't talk much about a tennis. it is getting uglier. it is not our friend and in many ways hostile to us. and i think it is important to identify the people who are hostile to you. >> sorry. very short time in of want to

deal to talk about governing. i want to ask. i mean, first and second terms, very different. president nixon elevates the vietnam war and goes to china. reagan, teardown this wall. reykjavik in clinton and bush, all of them. what do you think a second term for obama might mean in terms of many course corrections? >> well, let me note that nixon removed troops from china. he has deleted it off the books. be careful there. a lesson they're is that unaffiliated wise men are people who are leveled such. very careful predicting second terms because presidents can surprise you. i think that the, clearly this set of issues that obama 2.0 is going to face are the issues you have all been talking about. but theresa, asia, but let me offer a threat given that this is the panel focused on comparing the candid it's. i actually think they are more alike than they are different.

they may not be in the same zip code on foreign policy, their lawyers in the same area code. many of the issues, the rhetoric has been different, the campaign criticizes the other guy and talks about your shortcomings, traditionally democrats republicans as reckless. republicans -- they accuse democrats of being reckless. i think that there will be more continuity, not just because of the structural demands of the situation, but because of the underlying video is the that being that different. we are not talking about republican nominees like ron paul it would have offered a very different world view. and i do want to go back. khalid is quite right. the fact that they may share the same general orientation, different characters and histories. that same outcomes will not be reached necessarily. politics as in poker, it is not just the quality of the cards

you're dealt but how will you play this cards. obviously bella but what i hear the governor saying is that he can play those cards better. >> we have to turn to audience questions. what to do rapid-fire very quickly. what is the most important fog tough foreign policy decision the next president will face? >> the use of force. it is always sending men and women into harm's. it is always taking the risks that are associated with force and what it means. >> and you agree with that. >> and york that presenting issue before the president is inaugurated is a run and particularly also the involvement of our israeli ally. need some convictions with respect to what to do. >> to run is the most important near-term challenge. >> if we can open up for questions. questions. >> i don't need to mike. >> if you would not mind. we have one right here.

>> it is more paternal circumstance. >> matt benjamin, dr. cohen, you said, important for romney would be countering a radicalization, the war of ideas. yeah republicans have been for romney -- are running especially has been calling on obama to be even more supportive of israel. can those be reconciled, those two? >> yes. i think -- and again, it is an interesting difference between the two presidents. if you look at where president obama came in, he came and with the view that a lot of people have which is at the heart of the middle east problem, the arab-israeli conflict. therefore i have to solve it. it may well be an unsolvable problem. that is not the heart of what is going on in the air spring or thomas were a people or storm. i don't think we know quite what it is. i think governor romney has been much better. let's take those extra near developments on their own terms

and wrestle with them. which is what we're going to have to do. and, you know, i agree @booktv actually, i agree with many of the points. one of which, we have to recognize the limits of our control and our influence. you know, i don't think that standing back on syria that has helped us in this area. i think it is why the governor is right to be a little more forward leaning. >> i can ask a follow-up. with all the law and democracy in the hostile region, gossip, don't you think the final status agreement has to involve the settlement? isn't it -- is in the president's supposed to use his influence to stop that? >> i'm not going to try to lay out my personal plans for an arab-israeli peace. a lot of people have done that and will do that. what i will set, the circumstances in which the israelis to pull back.

like the withdrawal from gaza which was done by a rather right wing government. it has been when they had personal trust and confidence in the president of the united states. and although, yes, this a ministration has delivered military aid and so forth, it is simply not true that the senior israeli leaders, political and military, have a lot of trust and president obama. that is just a fact. >> can i comment on this idea of controls and limitations and how personality matters. i agree. much is constrained, but personality clearly matters. the decision about afghanistan, the decision about iraq, emanations of his own judgment and represent, i think, very important implications of a personal involvement that matters. when you look at the decision wore their raid on twitter.com/booktv in pakistan,

the recommendations coming from your advisers, divided in many respects. a tough decision is made, which is a real chance of failure. the president made that deposition, and he made a correct one. personality really does matter. i am not sure that governor romney begins to understand this. elliott talks about revealing moments. admission -- mentioned the russian geostrategic number one threat. if i am president that would listen. among other things, written a wonderful book about how presidents have to make decisions between generals. it does not work that way. really the individual personality. >> we have to keep going. >> first, the alternative? he did not say i'm going to do what my generals tommy to do. i think it is pretty clear, and you can look at their recent stories in the new york times, that to some extent senior military leaders were not particularly heard in the most recent set of decision making because i know no general officer in the united states

military who likes to see troops withdrawn from afghanistan in the middle of the fighting season there. >> it makes no sense. >> i would listen to my generals. what does that mean? well, it just means i would hear them. of course president obama does that. he is implying something else. and what he is implying is he will follow military advice, and it is very misleading. >> i'm sorry. you know, that is not how it thinks about it. president romney -- governor romney -- [laughter] >> this is somebody who has spent his entire career listening to experts about all kinds of things. >> absolutely true. >> been making decisions about whether they are wrong. and he is somebody who very much has his own very clear view which you can find in the book that he wrote himself. and that is, think, where you go. at the idea that this would be a pawn of anybody, of any adviser,

military or civilian is just not true. >> let's take one more question. >> yes. i just want to know -- >> we have a microphone for you right here. >> hi. i wanted to know if you guys can expand on the relationship with latin america and have both candidates are going to tackle for instance free trade agreements. >> well, if i could, governor romney has talked a lot about it. again, this is actually a case where we know a concrete issue. governor romney from the very beginning in favor of getting that free trade agreement with columbia through congress. the previous administration, he was pushing and pushing, you know, similar arrangements with other latin american countries. this semester mission delayed three years and finally approving a free-trade agreement with an extremely important ally of ours. it makes no sense.

>> first of all, the a master's and has been very energetic and forthright and ellen american context, the trans-pacific partnership, an issue that involves the west, but america and eastern part of asia. a remarkable initiative that will lead to expansion of free trade and throughout the area. colombian free trade pact and the other two free paper -- free-trade pacts have all kinds of difficulties in congress. the administration persevered. president has also invested in a personal relationship with the president of brazil which is exemplary of some of the ways in which personality matters and you can't just listen to your experts. at think it has had real rewards. the columbia relationship is stronger than it has ever been. a very successful example of cooperation on security as well as trade. >> we have time for one more question.

all the way in the back there. do i see and? -- to ica hand? for the audience at home. >> thank you. in the csi of africa. i would just like to ask the panel to comment on the respective candid it's african policy and how you might see and obama administration policy toward africa changing in a second term and also the romney campaign policy toward africa, which the campaign has not been too vociferous on. thanks. >> i'm afraid you got me. you know, i have not paid attention to the romney campaign african policy pronouncements. you know, again, the unstated number of times. a campaign is not a parallel administration. we are not like great britain where you have a shadow government.

you know the kinds of principles that governor romney would be in favor of, which would be, you know, open system of free trade, civil rights to of human rights, and strengthening relationships. i don't know that that cannot to be perfectly honest, is very start as a division between how he views africa and president obama. i tend to doubt it. >> just one comment on the general principles and one comment on africa. the general principles, the general price to the principle icf is an inclination to divide the world between enemies and friends and to think that lots of luster is a very good thing. and my view is, this administration has shown that you don't perceive successfully that way. you proceed successfully by engaging people across the whole framework, but acting with force when required or with compulsion and means like the sanctions in iran that don't involve physical force but other means of the balance. with regard to africa, there is an example of this in the way we

have rallied the organization of african unity to try and police and be active in the sudan. very imperfect in bad results, many dimensions, but better results than if we directly intervened. the administration has also moved toward an agricultural policy in africa in terms of enriching our cultural investments, but i think it is at the very core of our modern understanding of development, development is led by agricultural things, first and foremost. questioning the degree to which the president is popular in the world at large and how